-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does God have a Mother?
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Mary didn't have technology of skill to make Words become Flesh, and in that aspect she or her body didn't do anything for that process and therefore she is not the mother for the process of Incarnation
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
Natters said:
Was the Father begotten? Was the Holy Spirit crucified, buried, and resurrected?
This is why I am saying that the concept cannot be thought without the separation of the natures.
In "becoming" (Incarnation) there was no contribution from Mary, because she or her body is not capable of doing so. In that aspect she is not the mother for the process, just divine process.
Was the Father begotten? Was the Holy Spirit crucified, buried, and resurrected?
This is why I am saying that the concept cannot be thought without the separation of the natures.
In "becoming" (Incarnation) there was no contribution from Mary, because she or her body is not capable of doing so. In that aspect she is not the mother for the process, just divine process.
I already explained in other thread about the seed: Zerah doesn't mean only Sperm or Ovum. It just say simply the descendant or descendants as we can see in OT numerous times. So, if any child is born out of a Surrogate-Mother, then can we not call him as her descendant?
Luke chap 1 thou shall conceive, the exact wording is that You shall have in your belly: it doesn't say in detail that her ovum was used. It just simply say that she will be pregnant.
Luke chap 1 thou shall conceive, the exact wording is that You shall have in your belly: it doesn't say in detail that her ovum was used. It just simply say that she will be pregnant.
I don't understand your point.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
This is why I am saying that the concept cannot be thought without the separation of the natures.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."In "becoming" (Incarnation) there was no contribution from Mary, because she or her body is not capable of doing so.
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
I don't understand this comment.In that aspect she is not the mother for the process, just divine process.
Earlier you said "her maternity relates only to the humanity". What did you mean by that? Where did the "humanity" come from? Why have a "conception" at all, if Mary wasn't involved - why didn't the Father just form Jesus from the dust of the ground, like he did with Adam? How can Jesus be a descendant of David, and thus be King of the Jews, if he didn't have Jewish blood in him?Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I already explained in other thread about the seed: Zerah doesn't mean only Sperm or Ovum. It just say simply the descendant or descendants as we can see in OT numerous times. So, if any child is born out of a Surrogate-Mother, then can we not call him as her descendant?
Luke chap 1 thou shall conceive, the exact wording is that You shall have in your belly: it doesn't say in detail that her ovum was used. It just simply say that she will be pregnant.
So that He become the Son of Abraham, Son of Woman, He was born out of woman. Maternity doesn't necessarily need biological relationship.
My explanation covers both cases whether Mary is just a Surrogate mother or she is a biological mother. Even though we accept the biological relationship, still Mary is the mother only for the humanity.
If you claim that 2 natures cannot be separated, you are confessing Jesus had both natures before the conception, or Jesus obtained both natures from Mary, humanity and divinity in which case Mary becomes really Mother of God, and the Creator of God.
My explanation covers both cases whether Mary is just a Surrogate mother or she is a biological mother. Even though we accept the biological relationship, still Mary is the mother only for the humanity.
If you claim that 2 natures cannot be separated, you are confessing Jesus had both natures before the conception, or Jesus obtained both natures from Mary, humanity and divinity in which case Mary becomes really Mother of God, and the Creator of God.
You're now guilty of perverting scripture, melding two unrelated verses to concoct a manmade interpretation.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Jesus didn't deny that the person who appeared to Abraham was himself (John 8:56-58)He was Son of God at that time.
Heb 7:3 is talking about Jesus Christ who is Son of God. If anyone denies it, he/she denies that Jesus is Son of God
Hebrews 7:3 does not refer to Jesus. That is a fact. Only a person who refuses to read the chapter will say otherwise.
Even if you were right, and Heb 7:3 was referring to Jesus, it's a ridiculous, pharasaical, and unrighteous stretch to presume that a person who disagrees with your interpretation is denying the divinity of Jesus on the whole.
But the humanity is God!Originally posted by Eliyahu:
still Mary is the mother only for the humanity.
False. The Word became (or "was made") flesh. What does "became" mean???If you claim that 2 natures cannot be separated, you are confessing Jesus had both natures before the conception, or Jesus obtained both natures from Mary, humanity and divinity in which case Mary becomes really Mother of God, and the Creator of God.
I deny no such thing. Stop your unrighteous accusations, Pharisee. Hebrews 7:3 isn't referring to Jesus. Open up the bible and read the whole thing.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
JohnV said
Hebrews 7:3 does not refer to Jesus.
You are denying that Jesus is Son of God!
Prov 30:4 has nothing to do with Heb 7:3. Stop perverting scriptural context.Do you the name of Son of God as in prov 30:4? [/QB]
JohnV, same to you and you better find the contradiction between your statements.
I know your heart is not denying the divinity of Christ, but if you deny Heb 7:3 is talking about the same person in Son of God, then your logic denies that Jesus is Son of God which the writer is speaking about since Heb 4:14. the whole epistle Hebrews is talking about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Nevertheless you deny 7:3 is talking about Jesus, which is the way of the denial by the people who denies Jesus is Son of God!
I know your heart is not denying the divinity of Christ, but if you deny Heb 7:3 is talking about the same person in Son of God, then your logic denies that Jesus is Son of God which the writer is speaking about since Heb 4:14. the whole epistle Hebrews is talking about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Nevertheless you deny 7:3 is talking about Jesus, which is the way of the denial by the people who denies Jesus is Son of God!
It is a good question to think about.Originally posted by natters:
[QB] Eliyahu,
Do you believe Christ's humanity is divine? QB]
It is related to the matter of separation or inseparation.
But any divinity was not from Mary
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
JohnV, same to you and you better find the contradiction between your statements.
Oh, please, coming from the same person, you, who hasn't even answered any of the questions posed to you.
You seem to be the only one who says there's a contradiction.
if you deny Heb 7:3 is talking about the same person in Son of God, then your logic denies that Jesus is Son of God which the writer is speaking about since Heb 4:14. the whole epistle Hebrews is talking about Jesus Christ the Son of God.
You're reading two separate chapters and infusing inter-meaning where there is none. Hebrews 4 is making an analogy of the Sabbath, and then addressing Jesus as the High Priest of the Sabbath. Hebrews 7, otoh, is talking about Melkizidek (a high priest), and then addressing Jesus as High Priest in comparison. You need to study scripture more is you cannot see this.
Yes, it's abundantly clear. Jesus is not brought up until v 11, so that verses 1-10 can be used for comparison. v3 is not referring to Jesus, and when you says it is, you're adding to scripture.Nevertheless you deny 7:3 is not talking about Jesus, which is the way of the denial by the people who denies Jesus is Son of God!